Dispozityvumo samprata baudžiamajame procese

LTApie dispozityvumą baudžiamajame procese kalbėti įpareigoja stiprėjanti privačių interesų įtaka sprendimų priėmimo procesui. Besikeičiantis požiūris į baudžiamojo proceso paskirtį ir tikslą, įtvirtinant asmens teisių ir interesų apsaugos prioritetą, lemia naujų viešo ir privataus intereso derinimo formų paiešką baudžiamajame procese, peržiūrint ir dispozityvaus bei imperatyvaus reguliavimo metodo santykį bei ribas. Naujajame Baudžiamojo proceso kodekse, kuris įnešė daug naujovių ne tik į kasdienę baudžiamojo proceso veiklą, bet ir į baudžiamojo proceso teoriją, daugiau dispozityvumo elementų, o tai rodo įstatymų leidėjo pastangas labiau užtikrinti asmens teises ir laisves, siekiant suderinti baudžiamojo proceso veikloje viešuosius ir privačius interesus. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamas viešojo ir privataus intereso santykis baudžiamajame procese bei pateikiama teorinė dispozityvumo baudžiamajame procese analizė, daugiausia dėmesio skiriant dispozityvumo sampratai ir jo elementams – materialiajam bei procesiniam dispozityvumui – nagrinėti. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamasis procesas; Dispozityvumas; Privatus interesas; Viešas vs.privatus interesas; Criminal procedure; Dispositiveness; Dispositivness; Private interest; Public vs. private interest.

ENThe increasing impact of private interests on the decision-making process enables us to talk about dispositiveness in criminal procedure. The changing attitude towards the purpose and objective of criminal procedure consolidating the priority of the protection of human rights and personal interests conditions the search for new forms of the combination of public and private interests in criminal procedure, thus reviewing the limits and proportions of the dispositive and imperative method of legal regulation. The new Code of Criminal Procedure brought many innovations not only in the daily criminal procedure practice, but also in the theory of criminal procedure; therefore, the extension of dispositive elements is observed. That indicates the increasing attention of legislative powers to the safeguarding of human rights and freedoms in seeking to coordinate public and private interests in the criminal procedure practice. The goal of this article is to analyse the proportions of public and private interests in criminal procedure as well as to present a theoretical analysis of dispositiveness in criminal procedure concentrating on the analysis of the conception of dispositiveness and its elements, i.e. material and procedural dispositiveness. What regards the criteria of interest, one can analyse the coexistence of private and public interests as well as their impact on the method of legal regulation in criminal procedure.In the law of criminal procedure the private interest of the participant of the procedure is the interest which is determined by the fact that he is directly, personally affected by a committed crime. However, not only a crime, but also direct participation in criminal procedure affects the interests of a person. Thus, the object of the private interest of the participant of criminal procedure is the result of the investigation and hearing of a criminal case and the realization of other procedural rights. Though the principle of dispositiveness is not identified expressis verbis in the Code of Criminal Procedure, its content is revealed through particular norms of law. The content of dispositiveness comprises empowerments related to the disposition of material rights (material or contextual aspect of dispositiveness) and procedural remedies for their protection (procedural or functional aspect of dispositiveness). Material dispositiveness comprises the possibility to dispose of the matter of criminal procedure, i.e. the indictment. Material dispositiveness is established by particular rules which are expressed in formulas: invitus agere vel accusare nemo cogitur, nemo iudex sine actore, ne eat iudex ultra petita partium. The functioning of procedural dispositiveness in criminal procedure is related to the safeguarding of the personal rights of the participants of criminal procedure and other interested persons. The realization of these procedural rights is not related to the disposition of the matter of criminal procedure; however, it makes a significant impact on the progress of the criminal case. [text from author]